British postal union seeks to deliver management’s agenda

[Big Daz]

The key to change is the Youth Section of the CWU of which I was once a member having become a rep (H and S) at the tender age of 26

[Tman]

All very well and good ,but not a single piece of evidence or fact to counter his argument .

Other than the CWU (and other unions) work for the benefit of the members, and *Socialist*....*Workers* have done very little if anything for anyone but themselves, and advanced the lot of the average Joe not one jot? So what more "evidence" would you like? What more "evidence" would anyone need?
{Note, standing outside a closing factory for two hours in the sun and waving home-made bed-sheet banners hoping to get on TV doesn't really count as "helping"}

Fair enough you've got a bug up your bum about our more egalitarian left wing brothers ,but lets have some reasoned criticism as opposed to some bigoted reactionary excreta , cos otherwise it's "all pointless "

Yes I know, criticising anything vaguely resembling or even containing the word "socialism" seems to make you jittery, but sadly most of these people/parties are very far from the original concept of socialism. Does that matter? Not really, provided we all accept the inescapable truth that three-men-and-a-dog uttering the same old cliches doesn't constitute any sort of alternative or workable system.
That said, I'm sure they enjoy a few beers in the pub afterwards.....

{Oh yeah, nearly forgot, "Egalitarian left wing brothers" ....excellent!}

[Big Daz]

May I just point out to out new friend that PK report was posted on this site not CWU HQ site, it is this site that constantly puts his report into the big wide world and gives us a insight into the world of PEC meetings.

[BELIAL]

Nothing even vaguely constructive or relevant to add to or counter the argument then?

[stage3]

All very well and good ,but not a single piece of evidence or fact to counter his argument .

Other than the CWU (and other unions) work for the benefit of the members, and *Socialist*....*Workers* have done very little if anything for anyone but themselves, and advanced the lot of the average Joe not one jot? So what more "evidence" would you like? What more "evidence" would anyone need?
{Note, standing outside a closing factory for two hours in the sun and waving home-made bed-sheet banners hoping to get on TV doesn't really count as "helping"}

Fair enough you've got a bug up your bum about our more egalitarian left wing brothers ,but lets have some reasoned criticism as opposed to some bigoted reactionary excreta , cos otherwise it's "all pointless "

Yes I know, criticising anything vaguely resembling or even containing the word "socialism" seems to make you jittery, but sadly most of these people/parties are very far from the original concept of socialism. Does that matter? Not really, provided we all accept the inescapable truth that three-men-and-a-dog uttering the same old cliches doesn't constitute any sort of alternative or workable system.
That said, I'm sure they enjoy a few beers in the pub afterwards.....

{Oh yeah, nearly forgot, "Egalitarian left wing brothers" ....excellent!}

Tman you don't seem to understand the difference between providing evidence and making sweeping assertions. What benefits' has the CWU protected ? Fifty thousand job losses since 2002, a pay freeze, raising the retirement age and a £10 billion deficit in the pension. Never mind don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, sorry cogent rebuttal.

And if you are going to criticise the World Socialist Web Site at least have the decency to address your criticism to what it stands for rather than a scatter gun approach. Your comments are becoming more hysterical. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

[stage3]

Just some points for further clarification.

The number of job losses exceed the figure I cited previously. Based upon RM's half yearly report last December, there were a further 5,000 jobs axed during this period. This brings the total job losses since 1992 to 60,000.

By claiming that my article is 'anti-union propaganda', Tman resorts to distorting the truth. This is because he cannot answer the main contention - that it is the CWU which fails to act as a union in the way it has been traditionally understood by workers. Furthermore, it is the CWU that pays its political levy to a strike breaking government. Tman obviously has a preconceived notion about the 'average Joe' but that is no excuse for insulting people's intelligence.

The general tendency of the trade unions has been to sacrifice the long term interests of the working class in favour of short term gains. Socialists have fought to link the day to day struggles to a perspective that was based upon abolishing the source of workers exploitation, capitalism. In many instances it was the socialists that organised the most exploited sections of workers in the new unions, at the end of the nineteenth century. However, trade unionism always sort to narrow the scope of the class struggle to winning piece meal reforms. This limited outlook was viable over an extended period when there was room for compromise and winning concessions within the framework of capitalism. The trade unions justified their existence on the basis that they at least ameliorated the worst forms of exploitation.This is not the case today. The fact that socialism has been marginalised is hardly an endorsement of Tman's argument. The current impasse has been reached under the leadership of the CWU and the entire trade union movement. The struggles now underway will require casting off the narrow and sectional outlook that has been fostered in favour of generalising the class struggle. The organisation of workplace struggles needs to be in the hands of the rank and file and linked to a broader political perspective that challenges the framework of the profit system.

For those who are interested in a broader understanding of the relationship to between socialism and the trade unions I would recommend the following http://www.wsws.org/articles/1998/jan19 ... -j10.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[stage3]

Cant fault you there Brother and as you are still p*ssing off the local troll hope you dont mind but i want to add you as friend LOL.

No problem.

[Big Daz]

Im glad your online stage 3, i would be interested in your view on the strain of political thought known as Eco Socalisim as that is the strain of socalist thought i identify with the most.

In the interests of transparencey, honesty and openess, you may wish to know Im a paid up member of the Green Party.

[Big Daz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eco-socialism, green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, green politics, ecology and alter-globalization. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures; they advocate the dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers and restoration of the commons.[1]

[dvbuk55]

If he didn't know you were a paid up member of the green party he must be the only bloke in the UK who didn't

[Tman]

Nothing even vaguely constructive or relevant to add to or counter the argument then?

I thought I did, twice.
Is it the non-understanding of the point under discussion, or the fact that the "quick, just make more smoke" approach is so obviously failing, that makes so many of the *.* socialist *.* club members so catty?

Anyone would think the argument was about something important, or even possible....

[Big Daz]

If he didn't know you were a paid up member of the green party he must be the only bloke in the UK who didn't

On another forum I use the following rule applies.


Throughout the years there has been a history of lively political debate on our "Debate" forum. Where this involves local politics though, we ask that people taking part are open about their own political involvement.

In summary, if you actively work for a local party and want to raise an issue or take part in a discussion about local issues, that is fine - but please be open about your affiliation.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Throughout the years there has been a history of lively political debate on our "Debate" forum. Where this involves local politics though, we ask that people taking part are open about their own political involvement.

In summary, if you actively work for a local party and want to raise an issue or take part in a discussion about local issues, that is fine - but please be open about your affiliation.

Has anyone admitted to being a member of the Trafalgar Club?

[dvbuk55]

Throughout the years there has been a history of lively political debate on our "Debate" forum. Where this involves local politics though, we ask that people taking part are open about their own political involvement.

In summary, if you actively work for a local party and want to raise an issue or take part in a discussion about local issues, that is fine - but please be open about your affiliation.

Has anyone admitted to being a member of the Trafalgar Club?

Which one?

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Throughout the years there has been a history of lively political debate on our "Debate" forum. Where this involves local politics though, we ask that people taking part are open about their own political involvement.

In summary, if you actively work for a local party and want to raise an issue or take part in a discussion about local issues, that is fine - but please be open about your affiliation.

Has anyone admitted to being a member of the Trafalgar Club?

Which one?

The one which was set up for 'supporters' who don't have the bottle to become 'members'.